Policy Engineering and Process Improvement

This model shows how Southbeach can be used to model processes, in this case, describing the steps that might be taken in policy engineering. Once the basic steps in a process are captured, the blockers to and harmful side effects of those process steps can be added to the model. This then provides the basis for brainstorming how to overcome the blockers, or how to improve the process.

Action Oriented Southbeach Modelling

Using Southbeach to understand a situation is just the first step. Actions are necessary for change. This model provides one example of the steps you could take to be more action oriented with Southbeach.

Offshoring considerations - balancing cost and quality in transition

This model highlights what is considered by some to be a key focus of the transition to an offshore delivery model. It says:

Whilst offshoring reduces cost over time, there is inevitably an initial ramp up period that has the risk of creating quality issues and delays that counteract sales or services and hence impact profitability or cashflow. The knowledge transfer required to ensure quality and timeliness requires onshore delivery capability, sometimes perceived as high cost. This investment in the present must be balanced against the potential losses and gains of the future. The knowledge transfer and the management of this transition to a fully offshore model must be the initial focus of attention.

NHS culture opposed to Innovation?

This model was developed following lectures at the London School of Economics (LSE) - entitled "Innovating out of the Recession in the NHS". The speakers were Jim Easton, NHS National Director for Improvement and Efficiency, Dept of Health; Steve Barnett, Chief Executive, NHS Confederation and Prof. Patrick Dunleavy, LSE Public Policy Group. Mr. Easton is responsible for driving measureable improvements in service quality and productivity through the system. The meeting was chaired by Howard Glennerster, Prof. Emeritus of social administration at the LSE, holding various advisory positions to UK Government.

Despite significant funding and resource increases for the NHS over the last ten years, it has been insufficient to produce needed increases in productivity and quality. (dotted line). These are needed now to counter funding gap of £20B projected over the coming years. The theme of the lecture was the NHS culture and ethos which, it is claimed, is opposed to processes of innovation and change. Nothing less than a transformation is needed - gradual incremental downward pressure on prices and costs won't be enough. The cultural problem arises from a public ethos of mediocry, rather than excellence, and a passionate dislike and disinterest in service/process innovations over medical advances. Future models will focus on the interactions and root causes between culture and innovation.

Innovating out of Recession in the UK NHS

There is a lot of interest in public sector innovation, both here in UK, but also in the USA and in other major economies. The recession is forcing a hard look at funding, productivity and quality in service delivery - while maintaining clinical excellence. Last night, I attended a series of lectures at the London School of Economics (LSE) - entitled "Innovating out of the Recession in the NHS". The speakers were Jim Easton, NHS National Director for Improvement and Efficiency, Dept of Health; Steve Barnett, Chief Executive, NHS Confederation and Prof. Patrick Dunleavy, LSE Public Policy Group. Mr. Easton is responsible for driving measureable improvements in service quality and productivity through the system. The meeting was chaired by Howard Glennerster, Prof. Emeritus of social administration at the LSE, holding various advisory positions to UK Government.

I developed this Southbeach model (below) based on remarks which recurred throughout the sessions. I will be developing more models of the positions taken at the meeting. This model says:

The economic downturn has led to a £20B gap in funding. This reality, and the politics around it, will challenge NHS social principles unless there is a step change in productivity and quality. According to Jim Easton, incremental improvements will not achieve this, a transformation of the healthcare 'industry' is required (action). Only this can counteract the funding crisis and avoid much cherished principles being compromized. According to the speakers, a root cause is the NHS culture/ethos, which is harmful to the dissemination of innovations in service delivery, even if it does deliver clinical excellence and patient care. A major theory/reason stated for this is the harmful tension between national programs and local programs. This tension counteracts each of their contributions to the the dissemination of innovations, which are required, but insuffient (dotted line), for the productivity needed (scale up). At the same time, productivty can (questionably) lead to improved clinical practice, yet there is a sense in which silo clinical practice is counteracting productivity. There are unanswered questions here. Of course, if NHS principles are challenged the 'system' cannot counter the funding crisis with an appropriate step change in innovation, there will be a counteracting impact on the culture/ethos. In the model, this has been determined to be useful (green line) because the impact is directed to a harmful element (red box), the culture ... despite this having many useful qualities such as clinical excellence (green box). This illustrates the power of Southbeach to allow for the modeling and resolution of differing 'perspectives'.

An example method for developing Southbeach Notation Models

Whilst Southbeach Notation itself does not impose any methodology, it is sometimes useful to see how other people have been using it. This example is one way of assessing a situation, brainstorming improvement options, and establishing action plans involving the need to consult large numbers of people. It includes a very simple Southbeach model of a manufacturing firm by way of illustration. Several iterations of the model are shown to demonstrate how a model may be built up through structured questioning. At each stage, the new agents that are added to the model are highlighted in yellow.

Four phases of activity are described below:


More details on example activities and pointers for each phase are provided below:


Model the situation:

Identify & interview stake holders

What are the priority areas?
What are the goals?
What’s helps achieve the goals?
What are these dependent on?
What’s counteracting the goals?
What are the real issues?
What causes those issues?
What’s the root cause?
What other resources do we have?

Assess the differences in perspective
Break differences of opinion down into their parts to get to the issues
Agree what’s important and why, remove the rest

Cost, harmful, and considered a risk, counteracts Profit, which is useful and the goal of the firm. We keep this model deliberately trivial for the purposes of illustration and gradually expand on it below.

Tips

Don’t ask leading questions
Your opinion is irrelevant; Mine their knowledge
Watch body language; Ask pointed questions
Differentiate opinion or hearsay from fact
Seek corroborating evidence

What is most important? What are the goals and risks?
What is most useful? What is most harmful?
What led/is still leading to this situation?
What resources are available? What are the enablers?
What are the risks, blockers & constraints? How can we mitigate against them?
What is the ideal outcome?


Elaborate and refine the model
Who else should be consulted?
- Specialists?
- Customers?
- Suppliers?
- External experts?

What’s missing from the model? (stand on each block and ask...)
- What else does this produce?
- What else produces this?
- What else does this counteract?
- What else counteracts this?
- What are the enablers and positive forces for change?
- What are the blockers and inhibitors?

Here we look at what produces the Cost and Profit and what is counteracting them. Sales leads to Manufacturing, which generates both Revenue and Cost. The revenue contributes to the profit and the Cost counteracts it. The Profit is also counteracted by Corporation Tax.

Tips
Keep asking what causes this until you get to the root cause
See all sides of the argument
Decompose contradictions into their parts
- “Cut costs” + “Increase marketing budget” = ???
- - Choose between one or the other?
- - Move budget from elsewhere?
- - Improve marketing efficiency?
Remove unnecessary information
Differentiate hobby horses from the real issues
E.g. absence of something is not necessarily an issue – it could be the interviewee leaping to conclusions about what the solution is…. “The problem is we have no leadership”… or is it just that this person does not agree with the leadership?


Brainstorm Improvement Options

Each of the questions below targets a different creativity centre in the brain, and focusses on a different part of the problem in the system. Consider each question carefully and make sure to answer them specifically (e.g. consider the harmful effects of pollution: protect from harm (e.g. using a mask to avoid inhaling pollution) is quite different from reduce harm (e.g. using unleaded fuel), is quite different from reduce ability to produce harm (e.g. reduce engine size or speed limit), is quite different from prevent harm (e.g. pedestrianize the town centre), is quite different to avoid harm (e.g. don't go into the town, stay in the country).

Ask what could improve the situation?
- What are the enablers for this?
- What are the blockers and how can we overcome them?
Ask what could worsen the situation?
- How could we prevent this?
- What are the risk mitigations for this?

Increase usefulness
- Introduce more kinds or quantities of useful agents into the system
- Find a way for useful agents to last longer or be more efficient or effective
- Change agents somehow so they are more useful or have more uses
- Make more use of...
- Increase the ability to produce the useful, Find other ways to produce the useful
- Go to where the useful agents already exist or are available
- Find another way to get the useful that is not affected by the harm
- Find another way to get the useful that has not harmful side effects
Decrease harm
- Prevent harmful agents from coming into existence
- Remove harmful agents altogether
- Change agents somehow to decrease their harmfulness
- Reduce the ability to produce harm
- Protect useful agents from harm
- Avoid the harm

Improve
- Find a way to increase the usefulness without increasing the harm
- Find another way to get the usefulness that does not produce the harm
- Separate the conflicting behaviours or tensions
- - in time / space / by perception / condition
- - Transition to super-system / sub-system / alternate system / inverse system
Step back and consider alternatives
Move to the next generation of the system
Remove the need for the system

Here the ideas for improving the system are shown as blue boxes. Blue boxes are not yet part of the system being diagnosed, but rather, represent the recommendations arising from the analysis of the Southbeach Model of the system. Here Offshoring is designed to counteract Cost, as is Reduced Stock, which is achieved by implementing a Build to Order process. Sales are increased through additional Marketing activity.

What are the risks?
What are the external influences that could adversely affect us?
In what way might we be harming or harmed by the environment?

Here we examine what additional external factors may affect the system. Competitors, considered harmful, counteract Revenue. Warranty Activity contributes to Cost which erodes Profit. This causal chain is saying that both Competitors and Warranty Activity indirectly erode Profit, so we had better do something about it.

What can we do about those risks?
Can any of those harmful factors be turned to use?
How can we work in better harmony with the environment?

Research & Development is recommended here to identify Potential (dotted box) new Products that could counteract Competitors who do not have comparable products, giving us some of the market share that was previously with competitors, as well as directly increase Revenue by winning new customers attracted by this new Product. Continually asking 'what other benefits does this have?' yields R&D tax rebates which increases Profit further. Warranty Activity is reduced by an Improved Quality Assurance process. Note that the new process and products will have their own costs, which will erode profit. These are not shown here as they are a necessary part of the idea evaluation - the business case for each blue activity block - they are not a part of the system we are improving until those blue blocks are implemented.

Tips
Brainstorm improvement options, in the above categories, or directed in some other way
Collect improvement ideas
Group ideas together to create better ideas

Run professionally facilitated workshops
Use independent third parties who are not blinkered by history and have no bias
Consult experts as needed, from within the firm and outside
Use the wisdom of crowds – run virtual idea management campaigns using services from firms such as imaginatik.com
Consider what others in the market are doing

Consider the implications, what could the unforeseen consequences of your actions be? How can you protect against them? How can you make your solution last?

Planning Tips
What are the consequences of taking these actions, Useful and Harmful? (Impact analysis)
What preparatory steps should be taken?
What resources are available?
What other activities could our plan integrate with or leverage?
Consider what change management activity will be needed
How can we ensure adoption of the new solution?
Communicate and Educate far and wide
How can we ensure realisation of the benefits?
Consider planning in a benefits realisation phase
Establish metrics
Identify roles and responsibilities
Establish governance and necessary support or operational processes

Can the UK manage investment in its energy infrastructure to avoid future brownouts?

(Our thanks to technology and policy futurologist, Chris Yapp, for the inspiration to publish this example). Here is an example of the use of a Southbeach grid, to clarify the factors that could lead to powere brownouts in the UK. The model clarifies actions and plans in the present, and possible futures.

If we decommission coal and nuclear power stations on current dates and energy consumption rises this will increase the possibility of brownouts on a scale similar to New England a few years ago. This can be alleviated by extending the lives of these power stations till new capacity comes on board. That reduces the brownout risk at one level. However extending the life of power stations beyond their design limits risks unplanned outages which are harder to deal with. What lowers the risk on one timescale raises risk of a different nature on a different timescale.

But a question remains? What can cause new capacity to come onboard?



To get more insight from this model, we have added an agent to represent the intention (potential) to plan and prepare for building new power production capability. This 'thought' can exist in the present, and it is what brings new capacity onboard in the future.

If it does not occur (not realised) then the brownouts will occur if the decommisioning continues. If the plans don't come about, they do not counteract the life extension projects, and the life extension will therefore continue, with the risk of unplanned outage risks.

Both extending the life of stations, and planning for new build, are useful (green), but are in some kind of opposition (tension). Both cannot fully 'live' together - and it is this tension we would explore for further analysis as indicated in the model below.



There are therefore three risks to power in the UK:

Risk1: If new capacity does not come on board in the future, brownouts will not be counteracted.

Risk2: The surplus life extension will lead to unplanned outages.

Risk3: Planning intentions in tension with extending the lives of the existing power stations.

Further analysis would proceed by interviewing experts around the three causes of uncertainty - centred on the focal point: planning. Over time, models would become more detailed, and more compelling, and the root causes of uncertainty would be revealed. These models could then suggest directions for changing the situation.

UK energy policy

In this model, we show a summary of the landscape in which the UK develops energy policy. The model seems to imply that energy choices (coal, renewables, nuclear, gas) - coupled with national interests and the politics of global warming, are creating an uncertain environment for planning, investment, choices and options.

21 Drivers for the 21st Century - War, Terrorism, Insecurity (outsights.co.uk)

Southbeach can be effective at visualizing and asking questions about 'scenarios'.

Scenario planning is a strategic planning method that some corporations and many public sector organizations use to make flexible long-term plans. It is considered by some as part of 'corporate innovation'. Related terms include futures studies, horizon scanning, forecasting and roadmapping.

Outsights is a leading practitioner of scenario planning and horizon scanning - helping clients (including public sector organizations and NGOs) to anticipate, interpret and act on important developments in the external world. Their latest work is entitled '21 Drivers for the 21st Century'. Here is a small Southbeach model based on the summary ideas within one scenario.



Forthcoming Southbeach|MyCreativity can add rules to such models, to bring sripts, questions and best practices to life in the context of the current model. Here is an example showing this in action:

UK to introduce vetting of adults who spend time with children

Southbeach can be used to express important social issues and debates between government, policy makers, lobby groups, the media and citizens - so as to ask deep questions about the kind of society we create for the next generation as we sleep walk and widen the reach of the existing surveillance society. Models can be developed from multiple perspectives, exposing fallacies in the causal logic of those who argue to seek to restrict our remaining liberties. Here is one perspective.